NFL Rule Changes.

LeDave · 03-27-2018, 06:15 PM

So the NFL changed quite a couple of things in their rule book for this upcoming season and the future.

Wow, if I am correct, here is the new rule summary for catches. - As long as the receiver maintains control before the ball touches the ground or loses it by the ball bouncing off the ground, it's complete.

A larger summary and more explanation. - As long as he controls it fully and both feet or one feet and a knee or both knees or a foot and a elbow, or etc. are in-bound before the ball loses control, it's a catch. If the player is not down by the time he loses possession of the ball, it remains a fumble.

MarkJerling · 03-27-2018, 07:24 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by LeDave

As long as he controls it fully and both feet or one feet and a knee or both knees or a foot and a elbow, or etc. are in-bound before the ball loses control, it's a catch. If the player is not down by the time he loses possession of the ball, it remains a fumble.

I know you posted in English but I have not the foggiest idea what you're on about. It may as well have been Swahili.

**monochrome** · 03-27-2018, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

So the NFL changed quite a couple of things in their rule book for this upcoming season and the future.

Wow, if I am correct, here is the new rule summary for catches. - As long as the receiver maintains control before the ball touches the ground or loses it by the ball bouncing off the ground, it's complete.

A larger summary and more explanation. - As long as he controls it fully and both feet or one feet and a knee or both knees or a foot and a elbow, or etc. are in-bound before the ball loses control, it's a catch. If the player is not down by the time he loses possession of the ball, it remains a fumble.

What does the NFL do?

**Just1MoreDave** · 03-27-2018, 09:38 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MarkJerling

I know you posted in English but I have not the foggiest idea what you're on about. It may as well have been Swahili.

I feel like that sometimes just after the BBC announcer says "And now in sport..."

**Rondec** · 03-28-2018, 02:45 AM

The whole thing was that over the last few years if a player caught a ball and then fell out of bounds or into the end zone, they would do a slow motion video of it. If the ball wiggled a little bit in their arms on the way to the ground, they would say that it wasn't a catch because the receiver "didn't have possession." Now they will call those catches.

**gaweidert** · 03-28-2018, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

I know you posted in English but I have not the foggiest idea what you're on about. It may as well have been Swahili.

That's the problem with the current rule. No one knows how to interpret it. All came about because of high definition super slow motion instant replay. It just used to be up to the referees to make the call as best they could . Not it is can become an arduous multiple angle review process that takes a lot of time but does allow the network to show lots of commercials.

Just another reason the game is losing fans. Watching a game in person is tedious and watching it on TV leaves you a lot of extra time to accomplish other things. An American football game has somewhere between 12 and 15 minutes of actual activity spread out over the course of 3 1/2 to 4 hours.

About the only time that the game is interesting is during the last few minutes of a close game. Other than that it's like watching two soccer teams play for a 0-0 tie.

normhead · 03-28-2018, 05:24 AM - **1 Like**

A Vegas dancer in a dance routine does more work in one routine than an NFL player does in a whole game.

The rule change had to happen. There were too many plays where no one agreed with the calls, but the guy who made it. And the reviews were way too long. And it didn't seem to slow down the litany of blown calls. Having 8 officials on the field, sometimes they don't see a play. Adding a replay official made it better but the cost was huge. And the instructions to the officials to which in some cases were, "let the play go on and depend on the replay official to make the call" just didn't work. It was a recipe for slowing the game down. In the end, like all things American, the game has been reduced to entertainment aimed at getting people to watch commercials.

The problem with the rule was people leaving games, because if it's so slow people turn off their sets, there is no one watching the commercials, and that's really all the industry cares about.

Americans have awhile culture defined by turning everything, including the internet into vehicles for selling commercial product. My advice, go to a play. Go watch a high school game. I personally will not pay for any activity that has "commercial timeouts". I'm paying for the game by watching commercials. I shouldn't have to pay another cent.

mohb · 03-28-2018, 05:54 AM

The advantage of watching in the UK is that we only rarely get to see more than edited highlights which for me is enough to admire the athleticism and skills and only get an quick explanation of why the game stopped for ten minutes whilst they reviewed a disputed touchdown. The rule change seems eminently sensible based on the couple of'disputes ' Iv'e seen, at the moment soccer is struggling with the video ref thing whilst rugby and cricket have adopted it with little fuss.

**monochrome** · 03-28-2018, 06:04 AM - **1 Like**

I once read there are only 70 offensive plays in an average NFL game, and just three of them determine the outcome

tuco · 03-28-2018, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by gaweidert

...
About the only time that the game is interesting is during the last few minutes of a close game. Other than that it's like watching two soccer teams play for a 0-0 tie.

I'd say that's true for pro football but I find college football way more fun to watch. It feels like they play each game like it's their last typically.

MarkJerling · 03-28-2018, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by normhead

A Vegas dancer in a dance routine does more work in one routine than an NFL player does in a whole game.

The rule change had to happen. There were too many plays where no one agreed with the calls, but the guy who made it. And the reviews were way too long. And it didn't seem to slow down the litany of blown calls. Having 8 officials on the field, sometimes they don't see a play. Adding a replay official made it better but the cost was huge. And the instructions to the officials to which in some cases were, "let the play go on and depend on the replay official to make the call" just didn't work. It was a recipe for slowing the game down. In the end, like all things American, the game has been reduced to entertainment aimed at getting people to watch commercials.

The problem with the rule was people leaving games, because if it's so slow people turn off their sets, there is no one watching the commercials, and that's really all the industry cares about.

Americans have awhile culture defined by turning everything, including the internet into vehicles for selling commercial product. My advice, go to a play. Go watch a high school game. I personally will not pay for any activity that has "commercial timeouts". I'm paying for the game by watching commercials. I shouldn't have to pay another cent.

Very interesting Norm. I've not watched a commercial in years. We record everything we watch and in the case of live stuff generally start about 20 minutes late, fast forward through the commercials, so we catch up at or near the end of the game. I dislike commercials intensely.

**monochrome** · 03-28-2018, 04:37 PM

IMO the entire ‘game’ has become mechanical and lacks drama. The entertainment is the peacocks dancing in the End Zone or when they flatten a quarterback.

normhead · 03-28-2018, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

Very interesting Norm. I've not watched a commercial in years. We record everything we watch and in the case of live stuff generally start about 20 minutes late, fast forward through the commercials, so we catch up at or near the end of the game. I dislike commercials intensely.

Last year I missed one of my Ohio State games. I watched the replay on youtube, it tok 15 minutes and showed every play, with no huddles and no commercials.

03-27-2018, 06:15 PM	#1
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	NFL Rule Changes. So the NFL changed quite a couple of things in their rule book for this upcoming season and the future. Wow, if I am correct, here is the new rule summary for catches. - As long as the receiver maintains control before the ball touches the ground or loses it by the ball bouncing off the ground, it's complete. A larger summary and more explanation. - As long as he controls it fully and both feet or one feet and a knee or both knees or a foot and a elbow, or etc. are in-bound before the ball loses control, it's a catch. If the player is not down by the time he loses possession of the ball, it remains a fumble.

03-28-2018, 06:04 AM - 1 Like	#9
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I once read there are only 70 offensive plays in an average NFL game, and just three of them determine the outcome Last edited by monochrome; 03-28-2018 at 09:29 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Romney plans major economic address at Detroit NFL stadium	jogiba	General Talk	3	02-24-2012 01:37 PM
Sports NFL - The Team that mostly beat the Colts ..	daacon	Post Your Photos!	11	12-03-2009 05:48 AM
NFL - Football	K-9	General Talk	64	11-23-2009 07:45 PM
Green Bay/Washington Game - NFL	camperguy01	Post Your Photos!	12	10-17-2007 03:23 AM

03-27-2018, 07:24 PM - 2 Likes	#2
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,403	Originally posted by LeDave As long as he controls it fully and both feet or one feet and a knee or both knees or a foot and a elbow, or etc. are in-bound before the ball loses control, it's a catch. If the player is not down by the time he loses possession of the ball, it remains a fumble. I know you posted in English but I have not the foggiest idea what you're on about. It may as well have been Swahili.

03-27-2018, 08:26 PM	#3
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by LeDave So the NFL changed quite a couple of things in their rule book for this upcoming season and the future. Wow, if I am correct, here is the new rule summary for catches. - As long as the receiver maintains control before the ball touches the ground or loses it by the ball bouncing off the ground, it's complete. A larger summary and more explanation. - As long as he controls it fully and both feet or one feet and a knee or both knees or a foot and a elbow, or etc. are in-bound before the ball loses control, it's a catch. If the player is not down by the time he loses possession of the ball, it remains a fumble. What does the NFL do?

03-27-2018, 09:38 PM - 1 Like	#4
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by MarkJerling I know you posted in English but I have not the foggiest idea what you're on about. It may as well have been Swahili. I feel like that sometimes just after the BBC announcer says "And now in sport..."

03-28-2018, 02:45 AM	#5
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	The whole thing was that over the last few years if a player caught a ball and then fell out of bounds or into the end zone, they would do a slow motion video of it. If the ball wiggled a little bit in their arms on the way to the ground, they would say that it wasn't a catch because the receiver "didn't have possession." Now they will call those catches.

03-28-2018, 05:10 AM	#6
gaweidert Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,325	Originally posted by MarkJerling I know you posted in English but I have not the foggiest idea what you're on about. It may as well have been Swahili. That's the problem with the current rule. No one knows how to interpret it. All came about because of high definition super slow motion instant replay. It just used to be up to the referees to make the call as best they could . Not it is can become an arduous multiple angle review process that takes a lot of time but does allow the network to show lots of commercials. Just another reason the game is losing fans. Watching a game in person is tedious and watching it on TV leaves you a lot of extra time to accomplish other things. An American football game has somewhere between 12 and 15 minutes of actual activity spread out over the course of 3 1/2 to 4 hours. About the only time that the game is interesting is during the last few minutes of a close game. Other than that it's like watching two soccer teams play for a 0-0 tie.

03-28-2018, 05:24 AM - 1 Like	#7
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	A Vegas dancer in a dance routine does more work in one routine than an NFL player does in a whole game. The rule change had to happen. There were too many plays where no one agreed with the calls, but the guy who made it. And the reviews were way too long. And it didn't seem to slow down the litany of blown calls. Having 8 officials on the field, sometimes they don't see a play. Adding a replay official made it better but the cost was huge. And the instructions to the officials to which in some cases were, "let the play go on and depend on the replay official to make the call" just didn't work. It was a recipe for slowing the game down. In the end, like all things American, the game has been reduced to entertainment aimed at getting people to watch commercials. The problem with the rule was people leaving games, because if it's so slow people turn off their sets, there is no one watching the commercials, and that's really all the industry cares about. Americans have awhile culture defined by turning everything, including the internet into vehicles for selling commercial product. My advice, go to a play. Go watch a high school game. I personally will not pay for any activity that has "commercial timeouts". I'm paying for the game by watching commercials. I shouldn't have to pay another cent.

03-28-2018, 05:54 AM	#8
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	The advantage of watching in the UK is that we only rarely get to see more than edited highlights which for me is enough to admire the athleticism and skills and only get an quick explanation of why the game stopped for ten minutes whilst they reviewed a disputed touchdown. The rule change seems eminently sensible based on the couple of'disputes ' Iv'e seen, at the moment soccer is struggling with the video ref thing whilst rugby and cricket have adopted it with little fuss.

03-28-2018, 12:09 PM	#10
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,024	Originally posted by gaweidert ... About the only time that the game is interesting is during the last few minutes of a close game. Other than that it's like watching two soccer teams play for a 0-0 tie. I'd say that's true for pro football but I find college football way more fun to watch. It feels like they play each game like it's their last typically.

03-28-2018, 04:10 PM	#11
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,403	Originally posted by normhead A Vegas dancer in a dance routine does more work in one routine than an NFL player does in a whole game. The rule change had to happen. There were too many plays where no one agreed with the calls, but the guy who made it. And the reviews were way too long. And it didn't seem to slow down the litany of blown calls. Having 8 officials on the field, sometimes they don't see a play. Adding a replay official made it better but the cost was huge. And the instructions to the officials to which in some cases were, "let the play go on and depend on the replay official to make the call" just didn't work. It was a recipe for slowing the game down. In the end, like all things American, the game has been reduced to entertainment aimed at getting people to watch commercials. The problem with the rule was people leaving games, because if it's so slow people turn off their sets, there is no one watching the commercials, and that's really all the industry cares about. Americans have awhile culture defined by turning everything, including the internet into vehicles for selling commercial product. My advice, go to a play. Go watch a high school game. I personally will not pay for any activity that has "commercial timeouts". I'm paying for the game by watching commercials. I shouldn't have to pay another cent. Very interesting Norm. I've not watched a commercial in years. We record everything we watch and in the case of live stuff generally start about 20 minutes late, fast forward through the commercials, so we catch up at or near the end of the game. I dislike commercials intensely.

03-28-2018, 04:37 PM	#12
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	IMO the entire ‘game’ has become mechanical and lacks drama. The entertainment is the peacocks dancing in the End Zone or when they flatten a quarterback.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2018, 05:29 PM	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by MarkJerling Very interesting Norm. I've not watched a commercial in years. We record everything we watch and in the case of live stuff generally start about 20 minutes late, fast forward through the commercials, so we catch up at or near the end of the game. I dislike commercials intensely. Last year I missed one of my Ohio State games. I watched the replay on youtube, it tok 15 minutes and showed every play, with no huddles and no commercials.